From: Martin Langhoff <martin.langhoff@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 22:21:37 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cvsserver: Use Merged response instead of Update-existing for merged files
Message-ID: <46a038f90703111521h59079864q9c9f5d922c92dc99@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7v4pot281h.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

On 3/10/07, Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:
> Frank Lichtenheld <frank@lichtenheld.de> writes:
>
> > Using Update-existing leads to the client forgetting about the "locally
> > modified" status of the file which can lead to loss of local changes on
> > later updates.
>
> To me, both of these hunks look correct (the first one is clean
> merge, the second one is merge with conflicts).  Ack?

Ack!



m